The loss of 32 vibrant lives last week at Virginia Tech was tragedy number one. Failing to recognize the underlying cause of the massacre would be tragedy number two.
Cho Seung-hui, the shooter, was obviously deranged. His robotic voice had the eerie monotone of someone who never heard himself talk.
Cho lived in a silent, lonely world from childhood. Later, according to forensic psychiatrists, his problem flowered into full-blown mental illness.
Cho's aggrievedness and paranoia were one reason for his rampage, but alone were not enough. Cho also needed a tool.
The tools Cho used were two semi-automatic pistols that fired multiple rounds in seconds. He bought one online from a Wisconsin dealer, another in Virginia. Without guns, Cho would have had to find another way to express his vengefulness—probably with less lethal results.
Since the killings, no big outcry against guns has erupted. Perhaps we are numb to Cho's shootings or think his florid mental illness would have found violent outlet even without guns. Perhaps we believe the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to own guns, or we feel helpless to counter the powerful National Rifle Association. Perhaps we think the right laws were already on the books—Cho just happened to fall through the cracks.
For whatever reason, our silence and comfort with the status quo is wrong.
The legality and ready availability of guns in the United States is a fundamental cause of Cho's shootings and tens of thousands of ordinary homicides. Without guns, Cho would have had to resort to less efficient means or terrorist-grade mayhem to wreak vengeance.
The former method probably would have left far fewer victims; the latter method would have required greater sophistication and should have tripped the radar of agencies looking for terrorist behavior. Cho—mirroring the story of The Three Bears—found in guns an easy, incredibly lethal tool that was ""just right.""
Some argue periodic shootings are the ""price"" for our freedom to own guns. This argument is specious since the right accorded by the Second Amendment is clearly associated with maintaining a militia, not owning guns for personal use.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in its 1939 ruling United States v. Miller, asserted the government's right to regulate guns. Lower courts, such as the 7th Circuit Court in its 1982 ruling Quilici v. Morton Grove, have also asserted the same right.
The main reason firearms are not more tightly controlled—despite court rulings—is the NRA, which vigorously opposes gun control. It famously opposed the 1994 assault weapons ban, which most law enforcement agencies supported.
The NRA has created a propaganda cloud around guns—similar in effect to the Bush Administration's fog of lies surrounding the Iraq War. Just as the Bush Administration created a broadly accepted public belief that Saddam and 9/11 were linked, the NRA has manufactured a perception, also widely accepted, that guns can't be blamed for gun violence.
The past week is proof of the NRA's success. Commentators and the public have focused more on Cho's pathology than the gun culture that facilitated his crime.
History shows public thinking about major issues can change—race, sexuality and the Iraq War are good examples. It is now time for a sea change in thinking about guns: Owning them is not a constitutional right and their availability should be radically restricted.
The pro-gun lobby is quick to argue restricting gun access will make law-abiding citizens defenseless. They argue people like Cho can always acquire illegal weapons. Certainly, nothing is foolproof. However, maintaining the status quo or arming every citizen is not the answer. Instead, we must gradually dry up the supply of guns—by limiting both legal and illegal access to guns.
The 32 bright, vivacious people tragically killed in Virginia deserve our best effort to change America's gun laws and culture. If the pro-gun lobby silences or diverts our outrage, their deaths will have been for nothing.
